W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Restricting a union? was RE: Schema for schemas bugs?

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 06:13:01 +0800
Message-ID: <116D27C8E12BD411B3AB00B0D022B0B8010E5628@yate.wa.csiro.au>
To: jeni@jenitennison.com, Simon.Cox@csiro.au
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org, rmartell@galdosinc.com

So Jeni, given that the constraint we quoted below states:  

   "B's {variety} is union and D is ***validly derived from*** 
    a type definition in B's {member type definitions} 
    given the subset, as defined by this constraint." 

then it cou

Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 18:23:42 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Dare Obasanjo: "RE: [ANN] MSXML 4.0 SP 1 Now Available"
Previous message: Michael Smus: "XML Schema built in simple type definition location"
Maybe in reply to: Simon.Cox@csiro.au: "Restricting a union? was RE: Schema for schemas bugs?"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:41 GMT